Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Snowshoe who wrote (2)	10/21/2004 4:23:21 AM
From: Snowshoe	Respond to of 570

Alaska editorial: State should consider owning share of gas line juneauempire.com Web posted October 20, 2004 This editorial appeared in Sunday's Anchorage Daily News: Nobody flinched when Gov. Frank Murkowski suggested state ownership of a proposed natural gas pipeline. Not the Republicans, not the Democrats, not the oil companies, not, so far as we know, the Greens or the Republican Moderates or the Alaskan Independence Party. What that means is: The idea deserves a very careful look. Many times state leaders have wondered whether Alaska would be better off with an ownership piece of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline. It's time to ask the same question about the gas line. Plenty of caution is in order. Putting billions of state dollars at risk is no small decision. The gas line has never been shown conclusively to pan out. The worst case would be partial ownership of a proposition that loses money perpetually and drains state assets. Adopting that risk is not something to be done on faith or principle alone; hard numbers up front - scrubbed fully and openly - will be needed. But at least two factors make state participation worth considering now. First, federal legislation signed by President Bush last week gave the project a significant boost up front. The bill lowered the financial risk by providing federal loan guarantees; it lowered the political risk by providing for expedited legal and regulatory reviews of the project. Where Congress balked was in accepting the market risk: It refused to put a price support under gas prices that could fall below profitable ranges. State ownership would expose Alaskans to that market risk. But state ownership also would present real benefits and opportunities - access to information about the business, an owner's return on investment, a general economic and employment boost. The second changed factor is Alaska's improved financial condition. Three decades ago, when Alaskans considered an ownership share in the oil pipeline, the state didn't have much money to risk. There was no permanent fund, precious few reserves and many generations of unmet needs. Owning part of the oil pipeline would have meant risking money Alaska did not have - the proverbial birds in the bush. Owning part of a gas pipeline now would mean risking money that's already in hand - hazardous, to be sure, but with less downside risk. What now? Gov. Murkowski's suggestion should kick off a great gale of study and debate. He should pull together Alaska's best business and political minds from both sides of the aisle to consider the issues and offer guidance. He should demand that they test all the assumptions, study the business risks, consider the consequences and reach an open conclusion after substantial debate. There should be no rush and no delay. It's a huge decision, with huge risks and opportunities. But it's good to see the idea come forth.